Sullied yet again
OXFORD HAD JUST been recovering well in the eyes of the public, and more importantly the national press, from Gordon Brown's ignorant comments over the Laura Spence affair. Sir Michael Beloff, through his influential media contacts, might even have convinced some last January that places really weren't up for sale at supposedly one of the most academic universities in the world. Then the Reverend John Platt and his accomplice, Mary-Jane Hilton, dragged the name of the University through the mud yet again.
And it is the University that suffers: here we all know that the Oxford system allows more independence for each college than any other collegiate university, but to the outside world it is 'Oxford University' - "oh yeah, the famous one with the corrupt admissions policy". To the average person on the street - the person we should be encouraging to apply here - Pembroke is not seen as having its own policy, distinct from the University as a whole. Of course this person can apply to another college, but first they need to overcome that barrier that says, "I don't have enough money to bribe my way in", even to put Oxford down on the UCAS form. Except there's a problem here. They can't, and shouldn't have to, break down that barrier - only the colleges of the University can do that, and do it together. In this case, image is everything, as Platt was only too aware when he said, "If this story gets out, we'd all be blown away". Well he and Hilton certainly have been; it remains to be seen what the longer-term results will be as regards Pembroke College, admissions policy in general, funding and the perception of the University.
Every time an incident like this occurs, Oxford is once again thrown into the limelight for all the wrong reasons. Of course the national press will be interested in the smallest discrepancy in such a famous university as Oxford. Having featured in the media so recently regarding admissions, we should hardly be surprised that The Sunday Times targeted Oxford. Some might complain about the seemingly harsh journalistic approach, setting out to dupe the admissions tutors, but they really did hit the jackpot, didn't they? We obviously deserve to be the subject of such tactics if they prove to reveal equivalent practices - had there been nothing untoward, the press would no doubt leave the University alone.
Some have tried to excuse the action, citing the poverty of the college, eloquently described by Platt as "poor as shit". Yes, there is inequality in the system - as the OUSU report due out this term demonstrates. A process of investigation initiated, as it happens, by Pembroke JCR President, Josh Kern. It must be asked too, what sort of system drives, by all accounts, a well-liked, 'decent' priest to measures of this kind. But this is no excuse, barely reason, for tainting the whole admissions system, University-wide.
As the allegations build up, this time apparently well-founded (otherwise why the almost immediate resignations?), questions hang over every place at Oxford. Was my wealthy next-door neighbour admitted only for that reason? Is the University as discriminating on an academic level as it claims? The questions were already being directed towards foreign students - who carry an attractive fee for every college - but now it seems that every degree that comes out of the University is tarred with a similar brush, devalued by the actions of an unthinking few. It reflects badly on us all. How can an outsider, or even a student, know the real reason he or she is here, when practices like that during the holidays are revealed? It casts doubt on the intelligence of every one of us. It shouldn't need a draconian central admissions policy - flexibility is one of the present system's strengths - or is it just very naïve of me to think we should be able to rely on the incorruptibility of our admissions tutors, our teachers, or, Heaven forbid, our clergymen?
It also begs the question of where else such underhand deals are done. As well as Pembroke, The Sunday Times approached St. Peter's, Mansfield and Queen's, and was thankfully turned down. But what of other colleges? If it can happen at Pembroke, why not at St. Edmund Hall or Lady Margaret Hall, other poor colleges on the Colleges Contribution Scheme? Until papers like The Sunday Times can write an article explaining how they tried to dupe Oxford University into accepting bribes for extra places, but failed because none of the colleges were prepared to go along with it, how can anyone trust the system? At the moment, it seems, none of us know if we can rely on Oxford's claim that the only discrimination practised here is academic.
25th Apr 2002